Game Thread: Lady Vols v NC State, Away, Wed., 4PM, ESPN2, Tues Nov 4th

[GameTime]

Mad, in truth only one of those 8 games is on this roster. Have to believe this roster would have been more successful in those games, given the superior talent level now. Don’t think we can say there is a trend, it’s one game for this squad. Even the 7 games against top tens last year were quite close and that was with a much less athletic and talented roster.

Good to see you again my friend.....How the hell are you?

This past game had all of us back in the groove of cheering/yelling for the Lady Vols again...Besides the endless questionable refereeing whistles, our insistence to double team the player bringing the ball up court, and getting beat like a drum was maddening.....

All those easy non contested layups drove me nuts....It was easy to see they had worked (successfully) on how to break our press...We fell right into their trap.

 

[Rooster1]

Good to see you again my friend.....How the hell are you?

This past game had all of us back in the groove of cheering/yelling for the Lady Vols again...Besides the endless questionable refereeing whistles, our insistence to double team the player bringing the ball up court, and getting beat like a drum was maddening.....

All those easy non contested layups drove me nuts....It was easy to see they had worked (successfully) on how to break our press...We fell right into their trap.

GT, nice hearing from you as well, thx for the reply and kind words. I have a strong suspicion that there will be plenty of celebratory days for LV fans during this season, too much raw talent to be otherwise. I’m expecting big things from this Lady Vol team, so talented. I’ll drop by potpourri more this season to check in on you, peace.

 

[chuckiepoo]

Coaches just don't seem to be in touch with who is playing well and who is having a terrible day.

Pretty sure there is are a couple of tablets over on the side line with at least the obvious data available. Also, what are the objectives to be achieved during a game? Early season, top ranked team, sharp wits on the opposing bench?

I’m gonna go with Jaida accomplished what was on her list of “to dos” and was granted the balance of the game to watch and receive additional coaching.

…a stretch, I know.

 

[Rooster1]

Just some interesting info on Wes Moore….he has two degrees from UT….didn't know that…

Wes Moore (basketball) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The guy earned his way up the ranks, toiling in the lower levels for a long while and has a lifetime .76% winning percentage. Been a winner every place he has been, he seems like a genuine person, nothing but good things to say about him really, he knows Knoxville well having played college ball there at Johnson Bible college before getting two more degrees at UT. Had an historic run at Chattanooga for 13 years prior to NCSU job, and was HC at two other smaller schools prior to being Mocs HC. Nothing was ever given to this guy, he made it on his own merits, the hard way. Hard not to like this fella.

 

[winkles18]

Well

 

[Rooster1]

Well

I’m not on X, so I don’t see anything from there except when posted here. I realize most of it is garbage, one of the reasons I do not waste time there. I would say, objectively I think, that post was not entirely BS in concept as we all realize that once the game gets into half court play the LV’s have room to grow.

 

[madtownvol]

Mad, in truth only one of those 8 games is on this roster. Have to believe this roster would have been more successful in those other games, given the superior talent level now. Don’t think we can say there is a trend, it’s one game for this squad. Even the 7 games against top tens last year were quite close and that was with a much less athletic and talented roster.

Hi Rooster,'

Absolutely, a fair point. This team, with a little more time and experience, should be a major upgrade over last season.

But, this game reminded me of the close loss to LSU last season. In that game, the LVs had a 1 point lead and a foul to give when LSU had possession with like 10 seconds remaining. Obviously, you take the foul after 3-5 seconds and shorten the clock for LSU. Instead, the LVs did not foul and LSU's Johnson' dribbled around, got into the lane and scored the winning buzzer beater.

I think this game was lost by bad subbing decision in the last 2 minutes. That is 2 big games where the LVs lost leads because the coaching staff was not locked in during crunch time. There were one or two other losses, last season where late game management contributed to a loss.

CKC has done some amazing things in a short time line but her late game "game" needs to go up a notch.

 

[chuckiepoo]

Hi Rooster,'

Absolutely, a fair point. This team, with a little more time and experience, should be a major upgrade over last season.

But, this game reminded me of the close loss to LSU last season. In that game, the LVs had a 1 point lead and a foul to give when LSU had possession with like 10 seconds remaining. Obviously, You take the foul after 3-5 sseconds and shorten the clock for LSU. Instead, the LVs did not foul and LSU's Johnson' dribbled around, got into the lane and scored the winning buzzer beater. I think this game was lost by bad subbing decision in the last 2 minutes. That is 2 big games where the LVs lost leads because the coaching staff was not locked in during crunch time. There were one or two other losses, last seaonm where late game management contributed to a loss.

CKC has done some amazing thing in a short time line but her late game "game" need to go up a notch.

A great opportunity to sharpen her internal self scout game.

 

[lvocd]

Y'all, I've been thinking all day about our press and how often we get burned by it, and I keep imagining a modified version in which we try to get a solid trap very quickly (if we can't snag a quick steal), and if it doesn't look solid, then IMMEDIATELY shut it down and book our asses down the floor to prevent the inevitable two-on-one easy bucket for the opponent. I feel like even watching from the arena or on tv that I can quickly tell whether we've got a solid trap or not, and most of the time traps are NOT solid enough to fully invest energy on. I think we need to give it no more than a quarter full-out, and then start doing it sporadically. I feel like we need to keep the opponent from getting into their own groove once they've proved a half dozen times that they are unbothered by the press.

I guess I would like to see us be less predictable, and have the option to spring the fully intense trap on opponents when maybe they've gotten into a bit of a comfortable lull. I believe we actually help opponents by repeating the cycle without any variety in what we might throw at them.

 

[chuckiepoo]

Y'all, I've been thinking all day about our press and how often we get burned by it, and I keep imagining a modified version in which we try to get a solid trap very quickly (if we can't snag a quick steal), and if it doesn't look solid, then IMMEDIATELY shut it down an book our asses down floor to prevent the inevitable two-on-one easy bucket for the opponent. I feel like even watching from the or on tv that I can quickly tell whether we've got a solid trap or not, and most of the time traps are NOT solid enough to fully invest energy on. I think we need to give it no more than a quarter full-out, and then start doing it sporadically. I feel like we need to keep the opponent from getting into their own groove once they've proved a half dozen times that they are unbothered by the press.

I guess I would like to see us be less predictable, and have the option to spring the fully intense trap on opponents when maybe they've gotten into a bit of a comfortable lull. I believe we actually help opponents by repeating the cycle without any variety in what we might throw at them.

 

[DeerPark12]

Agreed didn't like it and JMO the subbing was terrible all day. Coaches just don't seem to be in touch with who is playing well and who is having a terrible day. We just say two minutes up we need to sub.

Because that’s what the whole system is based around, giving every bit of what you have for the spurt that you were on the court. If she never took out players that were playing well, they would be gassed beyond repair before halftime.

If people are frustrated by it, then you’re just going to be frustrated by it. It’s not going to change, there’s not an adjustment to be made. This is what she does and she will do it as long as she is the coach here. Whether that’s Five years or 25 years, that’s what she is going to do. Arguing about it on here as if it’s going to change is just swinging at windmills.

 

[glv98]

Because that’s what the whole system is based around, giving every bit of what you have for the spurt that you were on the court. If she never took out players that were playing well, they would be gassed beyond repair before halftime.

If people are frustrated by it, then you’re just going to be frustrated by it. It’s not going to change, there’s not an adjustment to be made. This is what she does and she will do it as long as she is the coach here. Whether that’s Five years or 25 years, that’s what she is going to do. Arguing about it on here as if it’s going to change is just swinging at windmills.

I don’t believe many, if any around here are arguing as if it’s going to change anything. Most are aware that it isn’t but simply engaging in fan board discussion. Talking to hear our head rattle so to speak.

I largely agree with what you said. How much of her basic identity would you expect her to give up? Both she and Danny White are heavily invested in this system being the be all and end all.

OTHO, this was always an experiment to see how the system would translate to the highest level. Therefore, wouldn’t she allow herself just some little tweaks in response to the results of the experiment?

I would love to see her tweak both the trapping and the subbing. But I’m trying to remember if she ever backed off either last year, even against better opponents. I don’t think she did.

I think the other day was the least effective I’ve seen the traps be. There were no 10 second calls and only six steals and those guards were far from the quickest or most skilled we’ll see.
It’ll work on who it works on and not on the others and apparently a certain number of wide open layups are just baked into the system cake.

CKC claims to have already changed up the system some by encouraging getting to the rim over firing up early in the shot clock 3s. But you sure couldn’t have told that about what we saw Monday night.

The subbing, I just can’t even. I know it’s a lot to keep up with but I swear whoever’s subber in chief is confusing herself. The sub system seems disorganized and not related to in game situations. But apparently the act of line subbing is more important.

 

[madtownvol]

I don’t believe many, if any around here are arguing as if it’s going to change anything. Most are aware that it isn’t but simply engaging in fan board discussion. Talking to hear our head rattle so to speak.

I largely agree with what you said. How much of her basic identity would you expect her to give up? Both she and Danny White are heavily invested in this system being the be all and end all.

OTHO, this was always an experiment to see how the system would translate to the highest level. Therefore, wouldn’t she allow herself just some little tweaks in response to the results of the experiment?

I would love to see her tweak both the trapping and the subbing. But I’m trying to remember if she ever backed off either last year, even against better opponents. I don’t think she did.

I think the other day was the least effective I’ve seen the traps be. There were no 10 second calls and only six steals and those guards were far from the quickest or most skilled we’ll see.
It’ll work on who it works on and not on the others and apparently a certain number of wide open layups are just baked into the system cake.

CKC claims to have already changed up the system some by encouraging getting to the rim over firing up early in the shot clock 3s. But you sure couldn’t have told that about what we saw Monday night.

The subbing, I just can’t even. I know it’s a lot to keep up with but I swear whoever’s subber in chief is confusing herself. The sub system seems disorganized and not related to in game situations. But apparently the act of line subbing is more important.

Here is the glass half full side:

Tough road game as a season opener with a lot of new players (and many freshman) in key roles. That is going to look ugly at times. Robertson and Pauldo seemed to be the main repeat offenders on the bad 3 shot selection. So, that can get fixed. The random subbing might be the staff assessing what combos will work (and they have not had that much time to adapt to Ruby's absence).

The glass half empty:

Some of these problems feel like replays of last year. I don't know how many more games it will take to realize that this super aggressive pressing style does not phase good teams. I do fear every year it will be "we just need a few more cheetahs to make it work" until there is no more next season.

 

[Rickster]

It's not unusual to question something that goes against traditional norms but her approach has been as transparent as it can be. I like the philosophy, it's very entertaining when things are clicking and once this team gets experience playing together and tunes their game, they are going to be a very tough out. Kim has her most talented and deep team ever and they appear to be built for "Kim Ball" so they will prove themselves, and the process, to everyone.....hopefully sooner rather than later for the hypertensive.

 

[RespectAPA]

It’ll work on who it works on and not on the others and apparently a certain number of wide open layups are just baked into the system cake.

There's two observations here to make. There is never a good time to give up an EASY layup. But the actual value of a 2 pointer in basketball is only around +1 the actual average value of offensiv possession when playing good teams. This means that the negativ value for the defense in giving up a transition 2 is around the same value that is generated by a forced turnover that doesn't immediately turn into points (if your opponent points per possession is ~0.9, then forcing a turnover is -0.9 value for them, and the easy 2 is +1.1 value)

And the other observation: Tennessee getting a turnover that turns into an immediate easy 2 is actually more valuable (by quite a bit) than their ""easy"" 2 (which optimally for us involved them having to make a difficult pass, and not because their backcourt is able to just run around our press) because our 2 is a clean 2 points (in the sense that we scored it "off their possession" in some sense) while their 2 is a dirtier 2, where the value has to be contrasted with the fact that it was already their possession already, they were already advantaged.

This is more and more true the better your opponent is offensively; the higher their PPP, the less relativ value they get out of settling for a 2 than a bad team, and the more relativ pain they experience when they turn the ball over without getting a set out of that possession. And giving up a 2 when it was supposed to be your possession is always really painful.

Maybe you weren't actually interested in the analytics behind why you can win a game even giving up easy baskets occasionally, so long as you generate extra turnovers in the process, especially so if those turnovers are scoop-n-scores (which hav comparable relativ value to a hit 3, since the value of a 3 is [3 - opponent possession value] while a scoop-n-score = 2 in all scenarios. [+ opponent turnover + 2 points - opponent possession value = 2 exactly because of cancelling]), but the analysis plays into why you can hav games that feel like disasters defensively in transition, and yet we're in the game at the very end.

This is why I occasionally comment that I think we'd be better if we double-teamed the inbounder. It seems to me that it would increase the turnovers way more than it would increase the easy 2s. At the very least, it's something we aught to shift into when the single-team inbounder press isn't working.

Also, I doubt that any of the coaches understand or care about anything I just said, I'm just explaining why the analytics validates what we do to an extent, even if the coaches might just see that it works even when things don't go perfectly, even if they don't understand it statistically.

I'd happily give up 5 more easy 2s per game, if that also involved generating 10 more turnovers, some of which woud be scoop-n-scores.

 

[LadyVol1908]

I don't know if the subbing system we use is ever going to be something that will be useful against the elite teams. It definitely can destroy the average teams. I will say that there has to be a better pattern to the subbing it has to make sense it just can't be random all the time. You have to know who you are replacing and your role on the floor. You just can't be in there to play a random two minutes of running up and down the floor. Coaches have to know who is playing well and who isn't.

I will never quit complaining about the minutes Latham and Civil got in this game together they shoot 7 of 9 from the floor and all we can give them is 29 minutes combined.

Long way to go, but right now the players that seemed to have separated from the others as far as playing both ends effectively are Cooper, Barker, Civil, and Latham. Those four should be playing a minimum of 25 minutes each. I know Mia also will have to play that amount of minutes no doubt she is the best point guard right now on the team. Until they start showing a lot more than they did yesterday Spearman, Robertson, Prawl, Boyd and everyone else we play should be resigned to split up about 60 to 70 minutes between them.

No sighting of Wynn or Hurst looks like they will be the two out of the rotation when we play elite teams.

I know I’m late to the party, but I’ve been on X preaching the sameeeee thing! Why did they get so few minutes and why did Zee and Prawl get so many!!!! Was Boyd not ready to play at the PG spot? Mia was clearly too excited, rushed, or overwhelmed.

 

[LadyVol1908]

I don’t think y’all are going to like me this year! this was an incredibly frustrating game to watch and I won’t repeat much of what’s already been said, but Kim can’t sit on the sideline looking like a deer in headlights! These next few games, I hope to see COACHING improvements, ADJUSTMENTS, otherwise I wholeheartedly believe UCLA will be a blowout for us!

And NC State isn’t even gooodddddd!

 

[madtownvol]

There's two observations here to make. There is never a good time to give up an EASY layup. But the actual value of a 2 pointer in basketball is only around +1 the actual average value of offensiv possession when playing good teams. This means that the negativ value for the defense in giving up a transition 2 is around the same value that is generated by a forced turnover that doesn't immediately turn into points (if your opponent points per possession is ~0.9, then forcing a turnover is -0.9 value for them, and the easy 2 is +1.1 value)

And the other observation: Tennessee getting a turnover that turns into an immediate easy 2 is actually more valuable (by quite a bit) than their ""easy"" 2 (which optimally for us involved them having to make a difficult pass, and not because their backcourt is able to just run around our press) because our 2 is a clean 2 points (in the sense that we scored it "off their possession" in some sense) while their 2 is a dirtier 2, where the value has to be contrasted with the fact that it was already their possession already, they were already advantaged.

This is more and more true the better your opponent is offensively; the higher their PPP, the less relativ value they get out of settling for a 2 than a bad team, and the more relativ pain they experience when they turn the ball over without getting a set out of that possession. And giving up a 2 when it was supposed to be your possession is always really painful.

Maybe you weren't actually interested in the analytics behind why you can win a game even giving up easy baskets occasionally, so long as you generate extra turnovers in the process, especially so if those turnovers are scoop-n-scores (which hav comparable relativ value to a hit 3, since the value of a 3 is [3 - opponent possession value] while a scoop-n-score = 2 in all scenarios. [+ opponent turnover + 2 points - opponent possession value = 2 exactly because of cancelling]), but the analysis plays into why you can hav games that feel like disasters defensively in transition, and yet we're in the game at the very end.

This is why I occasionally comment that I think we'd be better if we double-teamed the inbounder. It seems to me that it would increase the turnovers way more than it would increase the easy 2s. At the very least, it's something we aught to shift into when the single-team inbounder press isn't working.

Also, I doubt that any of the coaches understand or care about anything I just said, I'm just explaining why the analytics validates what we do to an extent, even if the coaches might just see that it works even when things don't go perfectly, even if they don't understand it statistically.

I'd happily give up 5 more easy 2s per game, if that also involved generating 10 more turnovers, some of which woud be scoop-n-scores.

Short version - the aggressive press is a net gain if generates more points off TOs than it gives up on easy, break the press lay-ups.

The problem is that against good teams, I am not sure the math has been working out in the LVs favor.

 

[herdvol]

CKC's system is much more than just a gimmick. I saw what it could do in her one year at Marshall; she took over a program that was middling at best and turned the team into conference champions in a short stretch of time. It took a while to click, but once it did it was an exciting show.

I saw a lot of positives in this game and look forward to a massive improvement as the season rolls along.

This game was nothing like the one I traveled to see in Columbus in November of 2022, when the highly ranked Lady Vols got crushed and embarrassed by Ohio State. You just knew the ceiling for that team wasn't going to be extremely high. This team has worlds of potential, so hang tight and watch the team develop into an elite squad.

 

[GameTime]

I rewatched the last 6 minutes or so of this game....Prawl gets slung to the floor, after the NCS player's hand slips from the ball and grabs her arm and sends her to the floor...No call...

A short time later, Barker gets physically slung to the floor by Trygger and once again, no foul...The female ref was watching about 6 feet away...

Coach Kim needed to take a Technical and defend her girls...There was no way we were going to win that game...But damn, don't get the hell knocked out of you and do nothing...The next set of refs know they can get away with whatever they want against our girls.

Not a good night for us in too many ways....

 

[Coach Jumper]

I rewatched the last 6 minutes or so of this game....Prawl gets slung to the floor, after the NCS player's hand slips from the ball and grabs her arm and sends her to the floor...No call...

A short time later, Barker gets physically slung to the floor by Trygger and once again, no foul...The female ref was watching about 6 feet away...

Coach Kim needed to take a Technical and defend her girls...There was no way we were going to win that game...But damn, don't get the hell knocked out of you and do nothing...The next set of refs know they can get away with whatever they want against our girls.

Not a good night for us in too many ways....

100% GT,,,,you have to show your girls you will fight for them for the to fight for you

 

[VolBall09]

Why is everyone acting like the sky is falling? Touch grass.

 

[Volfan2012]

Good teams overcome every obstacle, including officials...

We definitely were not good enough. We failed in a lot of areas in this game.

 

[glv98]

There's two observations here to make. There is never a good time to give up an EASY layup. But the actual value of a 2 pointer in basketball is only around +1 the actual average value of offensiv possession when playing good teams. This means that the negativ value for the defense in giving up a transition 2 is around the same value that is generated by a forced turnover that doesn't immediately turn into points (if your opponent points per possession is ~0.9, then forcing a turnover is -0.9 value for them, and the easy 2 is +1.1 value)

And the other observation: Tennessee getting a turnover that turns into an immediate easy 2 is actually more valuable (by quite a bit) than their ""easy"" 2 (which optimally for us involved them having to make a difficult pass, and not because their backcourt is able to just run around our press) because our 2 is a clean 2 points (in the sense that we scored it "off their possession" in some sense) while their 2 is a dirtier 2, where the value has to be contrasted with the fact that it was already their possession already, they were already advantaged.

This is more and more true the better your opponent is offensively; the higher their PPP, the less relativ value they get out of settling for a 2 than a bad team, and the more relativ pain they experience when they turn the ball over without getting a set out of that possession. And giving up a 2 when it was supposed to be your possession is always really painful.

Maybe you weren't actually interested in the analytics behind why you can win a game even giving up easy baskets occasionally, so long as you generate extra turnovers in the process, especially so if those turnovers are scoop-n-scores (which hav comparable relativ value to a hit 3, since the value of a 3 is [3 - opponent possession value] while a scoop-n-score = 2 in all scenarios. [+ opponent turnover + 2 points - opponent possession value = 2 exactly because of cancelling]), but the analysis plays into why you can hav games that feel like disasters defensively in transition, and yet we're in the game at the very end.

This is why I occasionally comment that I think we'd be better if we double-teamed the inbounder. It seems to me that it would increase the turnovers way more than it would increase the easy 2s. At the very least, it's something we aught to shift into when the single-team inbounder press isn't working.

Also, I doubt that any of the coaches understand or care about anything I just said, I'm just explaining why the analytics validates what we do to an extent, even if the coaches might just see that it works even when things don't go perfectly, even if they don't understand it statistically.

I'd happily give up 5 more easy 2s per game, if that also involved generating 10 more turnovers, some of which woud be scoop-n-scores.

I understand the system is based on Theoretical Analytics. It's just that I have not seen the system be completely successful at this level when applied to real life games with real life players. There are just too many variables. That's why it's come and gone as a style over the last 40 years.

The Immediate question is at what point, if any, do you stop happily giving up easy twos when it becomes apparent they're not being offset by generating more points turnovers in a particular game. Also at what point do you tweek the subbing that the system necessitates when it's keeping your best players off the floor at crucial moments. It's a legit discussion.

 

[RespectAPA]

Short version - the aggressive press is a net gain if generates more points off TOs than it gives up on easy, break the press lay-ups.

The problem is that against good teams, I am not sure the math has been working out in the LVs favor.

That simplification isn't quite right. There's a bias toward pressing because if once you account for all (a) opponent turnovers (b) opponent easy shots and (c) Tennessee easy shots off backcourt pressure, the remainder, (d) has more Tennessee possessions than opponent possessions.

I'll give an example. Let's say our opponent takes 10 shots that we'd categorize as "easy", making 8 of them. Let's say Tennessee forces 20 opponent turnovers. And let's say that 3 of those turnovers are steals which turn into easy points.

In that particular sample, the score is

Tennessee - 6
Opponent - 16

So -10? But consider (d), which is every other possession besides the 33 that I described in (a)(b)(c). 30 of those possessions are opponent possessions (20 turnovers + 10 high success transition shots) and only 3 are Tennessee possessions (the 3 scoop-n-scores)

If we make the assumptions that both teams are going to score 0.9 points per possession, and take into account that Tennessee has 77 possessions remaining, but Opponent has only 50 possessions remaining, then we find that in sample (d) alone, the score is

Tennessee (0.9 * 77) = 69
Opponent (0.9 * 50) = 45

Which would give a final score of

Tennessee - 75
Opponent - 61

The numbers here are just made up on the spot, and could certainly be scrutinized to be more realistic, but they serve to make the point that many people wil tend to overstate the pain of giving up an "easy 2" while understating the reward of generating an extra turnover, which are approximately equal in relativ value. There's different ways to frame it, but all that matters is that it's the foundation of a successful gameplan, and it's why we don't lose by much very often, and why we win by a heck of a lot a decent bit.